1/ Every few years I read a climate change paper, just for lulz. Last one I picked up had model defined over a 1 km grid across the earth's surface. something like 70% of those data points don't exist over land ... so they were interpolated. 0% exist over water (2/3 of earth) https://t.co/qD7PJVePy1
-
-
3/ the paper found that the model was pretty good at predicting .... the "real" data ... that wasn't real ... but was just generated by the model. I've taken QM in college,
@litgenstein. This wasn't quantum mechanics. This was Scientology.Show this thread -
4/ Hmm. You made a reference to climate science being as complicated as quantum mechanics. I told you that I've studied QM, and climate science seems flaky, and explained why. Your response is ... "Lmao" ? I had hoped for something more substantive. https://twitter.com/litgenstein/status/1214985241724473344 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
5/ I've read the entire response thread and I didn't see a single "uneducated physics crank". Could you explain which tweet you're referring to please? Thx. https://twitter.com/litgenstein/status/1214985906978865152 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
6/ Block if you want. ...but I think you'd argue your point better and perhaps convince people if you told me how I'm wrong on anything I said, or if you'd cite which "crackpots" are responding to the thread. I see none. https://twitter.com/litgenstein/status/1214986787736571904 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.